User talk:SlimVirgin/July 2013

Recent note/citation in Genesis FAQ

Hi there. I'm just wondering about your recent addition of a source to Talk:Sega Genesis/FAQ, citing an author of a specific book referring to the "SEGA Mega Drive". While I don't doubt that this citation is factually correct, was it actually a significant part of any of the previous discussions about that topic? If it's not, I think it might be better placed elsewhere - my concern is that it may have the effect of skewing people's interpretation of the history of that dispute, and could also be seen as you inserting POV into it (we went to a lot of trouble to give equal weight to both sides of the argument).

If that source is a significant factor during the arguments, we might want to clarify that in the note. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, if you want to remove that footnote, [1] please feel free. The reason I added it is that I found it quite difficult, when I was closing the recent RfC, to trace the development of the dispute, in part because some page histories had been deleted. So for anyone who might need to close a future RM/RfC there, I added some links to the previous-move-discussion template and that footnote to the FAQ.

That source tell us three things: that it was first called Mega Drive, that it was first called Sega Genesis in the English-speaking world (along with dates), and that the source therefore calls it the Genesis/Mega Drive. I thought that was quite a helpful summary, and indeed it suggests a solution (Sega Genesis/Mega Drive) that people might want to consider in future.

However, if you think it's inappropriate or that it inserts POV, by all means remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah, that's good. I think I just misunderstood its significance. I'll see if I can massage it a little to make it unambiguous. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I can't really come up with anything better. I think my only major concern is that the "Mega Drive" camp will see the "released in Japan" part of that citation as a sign that the source actually supports their side - while I'm neutral on that myself, the goal is to keep the FAQ itself from causing controversy. To me, the citation looks fine - it does appear to give due weight to both names. But you never know how someone else will choose to read it. I think my inclination is to let it sit for now, at least while I think over whether there's a better spot for it. (Also, we already tried several compound names - they were swiftly shot down by the larger community.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw the source as neutral, in that it seems just to list the basic facts, but I don't mind either way, so please have a think about it and do whatever you think is best. I saw that other compound names had been rejected as "clunky," but I wonder whether clunky might be better than a ten-year-long dispute. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC re MOS quotation punctuation practices

Greetings, Slim Virgin, and thank you for your recent comments in the pending RfC regarding quotation practices required by MOS. In order to clarify the meaning of RfC Option C per the request of several editors, the Option C description has been revised. Because you have already commented and stated your preferences and !vote before this clarification, I would respectfully request that you review the revised Option C description and then confirm (or change) your !vote as appropriate. If you confirm your previous !vote, I ask that you leave a comment here or on the MOS talk page. Again, thank you for your participation and follow-up in this RfC. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

COI submissions

Was curious if you had any thoughts about this? CorporateM (Talk) 16:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks very good, CM. You must have put a lot of work into it.

One thing jumped out at me in this section: "High profile controversies would ideally be independently written by a disinterested volunteer, but suggested re-writes should be implemented if they are better and no one has taken an interest in commenting." Would it not be better to stop after "volunteer"? It's very problematic when people with a COI suggest text for high-profile controversies, especially when there are legal issues at stake, as there often are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a problem with no real solution. Often controversies do in fact need to be re-written from scratch, but no volunteer is willing to devote the time to do so. If there is a problem with the current controversy and nobody else is willing to fix it, denying the COI the opportunity to offer a rewrite (in some cases) may put you in the position of preventing Wikipedia from improving, in order to avoid "COI contamination."

However, there are several disclaimers throughout the wizard intended to address this. For example, it does encourage the editor to point out problems, instead of proposing rewrites and advises against offering rewordings of basically neutral and properly sourced content.

I have an article on my watchlist that is edited by a PR person, who just added his own controversy through direct, anonymous editing. It was neutral, balanced and well-sourced. Should I make Wikipedia worse by reverting it? Should I ask someone to block him for violating WP:COI? At the end of the day, we just want to continue making WP better. CorporateM (Talk) 17:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a good example of the problem currently at Chevron Corporation. The corporate communications rep wants to change this section, about environmental damage in Ecuador, to one of his proposed versions.

In the current version it's clear what happened. In his, not clear at all, because it's full of the legal, corporate perspective. He keeps asking that someone install it, and because no one will do it he is calling it an "impasse". But in fact no one wants to install it, because it's clearly not neutral.

The problem is that these examples are usually not so clear. A suggested text may appear neutral while nevertheless serving the company's interests; they wouldn't suggest it if it didn't. It can be very difficult, without doing a lot of research, to work out what the key additions or omissions are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeping in mind, I haven't read the full discussion or proposed content, etc. this comes to mind: "Please do not propose ways to reword material that is already neutral and properly sourced. Care should be taken to avoid micro-managing the page and submissions should have a clear and obvious value to our readers."

Imagine if a journalist wrote an article and a PR guy said "but I think if you reword it this way, that would be better." The answer would be "pff". That being said, in some cases the material is genuinely that bias that it actually does need to be reworded, hence this disclaimer is worded carefully "if the current is already neutral and properly sourced."

This comes from my own disclaimer of what I'm willing to do. If it is less neutral, as you suggested, than it should be easy to decline it. If the current is already fine, then you should tell them you don't see the value in rewording content that is already neutral and properly sourced. CorporateM (Talk) 17:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And this issue does work both ways. I just started supporting a client that has such a positive reputation, that I suspect any reviewing editor will naturally assume I have not exercised good editorial judgement. They will assume that it is positive because of my COI, rather than because it reflects the source material. Or in other cases someone will assume the article should reflect negatively on a topic that is actually nuanced and complex.CorporateM (Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Slim and CorporateM, I wonder if you'd both take a look at the Activia article. I read it some months ago and though it is a total rewrite by a COI editor I have not made any comments as it seemed to me to be fair and balanced. On the other hand, perhaps it should have a tag that states that it was written by a COI editor? But there was something that has bothered me and that is the post written by editor Tony Ahn written on the Solarys-fr talk page [2] which pretty much seems to be a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", which was wisely refused by Solarys-fr. Gandydancer (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Quid pro quo COI reviews would be a really bad development. In fairness, the editor did say one review wouldn't depend on the other, but even so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that this is a solution without a problem, that COI editors can and do make their voices heard, to the extent that they sometimes dominate entire talk pages. What's needed is a procedure to counter COI contributions, and to bring in independent editors to articles in which a COI exists. What this AFC-like mechanism would do would be to bring in independent editors, but to do so to deal with "problems" as portrayed/spun by COI editors. In other words, the COI editor has an agenda, and the purpose of this mechanism is to get editors to implement that agenda. I view such a mechanism as being wholly counterproductive.

This seems to be aiming at situations in which COI editors propose text or material and are ignored. Such situations take place when the COI editor is proposing something that editors do not want to do. The danger of this mechanism is that it would result in slanted stuff getting into articles, perhaps by editors with an ideological bias in favor of COI or by other COI editors, bypassing the editors who monitor talk pages. I see that happening even if the instructions were much better than they are currently drafted. Simply not a good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the other thing this "push for reviews" risks doing is playing on the fears of editors that they will leave something in place that is wrong or defamatory. Corporate rep arrives and offers a draft. Independent editor turns up to review, thinking, "what if I say no, and it turns out there is some horrible issue in the article, and I alone have stood in the way of this multi-billion-dollar company removing it to protect themselves?" So the negotiating and capitulation begin. The only way to avoid this, as an editor, is to stay away from the situation. Then the claim is: "there's an impasse," when in fact there might just be a silent no. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Every situation is different and it does not foster intelligent discussion to treat them all the same. I did one Request Edit where every sentence of the article was factually incorrect. It was a good thing they used Request Edit, because I ignored the promotional copy offered by the editor, while showing appreciation for drawing my attention to important errors. Many articles I have written on Credit Suisse, IABC and Waggener Edstrom, which are now GAs, contained important errors I made personally and the PR person corrected me.

The project does not bypass the article's Talk page, because all it does is generate a pre-built Request Edit on the Talk page of the article. Also, it discourages actual content re-writes and contributions, but encourages factual corrections. "Silent nos" are a problem that should be fixed with vocal "no"s.

The bias' of the Activia article are not difficult to point out. It has an obvious undue focus on the company's marketing strategies, in order to justify communicating the company's POV in a mock encyclopedic format. Also, here's an excerpt: "Activia pioneered the probiotic spoonable yogurt market". Hrm, maybe though, I dunno. Check the source.

The editor should be admonished and the article fixed. Since no one responded, the request edit system ensures responses ("nos in most cases"). Editors that have an antagonist view towards COI should support a system that keeps them off article-space and puts all editorial decisions in the hands of volunteers. We decline AfCs by the bucketload - I don't know why editors find it so difficult to decline Request Edits. Though I know some of them are a jerk about it when they get declined, so what? I serve the readers and couldn't care less about "compromising" with a PR guy. CorporateM (Talk) 20:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, this sounds familiar - I think someone did the same thing with me a while back (approved my article than asked me to review theirs). Very inappropriate. I commented, but told them I wouldn't approve their article as a volunteer. People often talk about doing this so volunteers don't have to review, but it's a bad idea - very out of sorts. Someone should talk to both of these editors... CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Turning silent no's into vocal ones involves somehow forcing volunteers to do things they don't want to do. That's the perennial problem. PR companies do things to WP that they would, of course, never dare to try with the New York Times. They would not write to the editor-in-chief of the Times: "we demand that you employ an extra group of full-time employees who will do nothing but deal with our demands, or else give our rep a seat on your newsdesk." But some companies feel they can do this here, and that when we ignore them, it's an "impasse," rather than exactly what they ought to expect.

If these were people who were pointing out genuine errors, we would all have more sympathy, but it's almost always about fashioning an article to suit the company's view of itself, rather than anything to do with accuracy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The code words that I've seen employed are "work with." "It's a pleasure working with you on this article." "Are you willing to work with me to improve the accuracy and completeness of this article." If you don't, if you think they ought to back off, if you feel that corporations should not draft text for articles about them, if you feel that they're micromanaging articles, or that their obtrusiveness is excessive, you're not being "constructive," and there is an "impasse" and you're a bad guy. Unfortunately, the current system encourages such arrogance. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Arturo has certainly turned me into a "bad guy". I recently noted that in a recent post on his talk page he termed the other editors as one giving comments and feedback while my comments were termed as being "unhappy" with his edits. I pointed that out and he corrected it and removed my comment from his talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I refer to this as "entitlement." Because Wikipedia is openly editable PRs feel entitled to contribute to and even in some cases own the page. However, journalists do "work with" us in a value-based relationship. PRs that are not valuable get shrugged off, while those that are become friends even. I find that most content contributions are not valuable, but a good number of corrections and drawing our attention to big problems are. What we need to communicate is that they are not entitled - if they expect collaboration, they must prove their value.

I have brought several articles up to GA with a COI - these contributions are valuable. Because editors know I consistently provide contributions of value both with and without a COI, they are more likely to spend the time working with me, knowing that it is not a waste of their time. This is similar to the relationship we have with journalists. The Bright Line is a starting point to foster a value-based relationship, because PRs have to be valuable to be effective from Talk. This is not true in article-space.

Anyways, I cleaned up that yogurt article. It was not so bad actually and contains enough critical material. I just had to do some significant trimming of content that didn't belong and was intended to promote the yogurt's health benefits. CorporateM (Talk) 21:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly some COI editors are outward SPAs, punching in and out, but curiously that doesn't seem to hurt the esteem in which they are held by some editors. Just being polite and "following the rules" (which barely exist) seems to do the trick.

The "work with" dynamic causes problems when an article is already generally all right, and COI editors wish to make contributions that can do positive harm. That gets us back to the previous concern I and others have raised about how detecting that harm is not always easy. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

RJL (again)

Hi SlimVirgin

I saw thischange that you made to my posting. If I over-stated the case, then you totally understated it by writing "may be of interest". Since the RFC deals explicitly with UK matters, it is of vital interest to UK editors. I request that the RFC be closed forthwith, cancelled and restarted on the UK Roads Talk Page. Martinvl (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, sorry, I think the neutral note will have been seen by anyone there who's interested in commenting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DWH and Corexit

"Yes, teacher!" And I say that with appreciation and respect for your leadership and congeniality. You teach us all. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Buster. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually...

You did a lovely job with the confines given. Your work is most excellent, and I see the effort you put into it. I like the balance you struck, your writing and the way facts are conveyed. It's good that you didn't know much about the subject beforehand, because the casual reader will likely appreciate your version. Sometimes being too close to a subject isn't a good thing, especially when writing summaries. I regret these insights didn't come earlier. Anyway, thank you once again. petrarchan47tc 09:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Like ```Buster Seven Talk 13:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both. I know what's happening there is not what you want, but if compromises aren't made it will just go on forever. Bear in mind that the readers are the ones that matter. The general reader landing at the BP page will almost certainly not read a version of that subsection that is overly detailed, so pushing for one could be counter-productive.

The reader who wants the detail will go to the dedicated article, which got 87,216 hits last month (ranked 3,098 on WP in terms of traffic), compared to 72,138 for BP (ranked 6,804). So, in your shoes, if I wanted to educate people about that spill, I'd focus on the dedicated article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is intriguing to me, as your mention of the causal reader the other day was the first time i've heard of it. Is there something i can read for more information about them? Is the casual reader our most common type? Has there been some assessment of this? I do want to write for the most common type of reader, and all this time i've been writing for myself. It's all i have to go on. So if i am to change my target, i need more information. I do not agree that a reasonable-sized version (4-5 paras) would necessarily include blinding amounts of detail. If readers were to go to the DWH article, they would likely be overwhelmed before reaching any actual information. I don't want to assume that is a good option, and use it as an excuse to give BP readers a watery summary of the most important event to happen to the subject of the page. I've brought up what i consider the bogus results with the closing admin on his talk page, asking if there is any way to restore common sense rather than humiliate ourselves by adding a ridiculously-sized DWH section to the page and call it a day (just because 'we have to move along'). petrarchan47tc 21:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of editors have said they aim their articles at an intelligent 15-year-old with an excellent vocabulary, who learns fast but knows nothing about the subject of the article.

Fifteen year-olds these days are BRILLIANT, from what i have observed. I will have to write up rather than down, in this case. petrarchan47tc 22:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

When people arrive at the main article, they will probably glance at the lead, infobox, images, captions, and if they're doing further research will look at the references and external links. If they've arrived at the article to search for a specific sub-article, they'll click on that link and be taken to the one they want. I suspect that a lot of the hits on BP are people looking for the Deepwater Horizon spill who can't remember the name, or can't be bothered typing it out.

OK, this makes sense to me. petrarchan47tc 22:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the current sub-section on the spill, it doesn't explain what BP's involvement was, but goes into great detail about other issues. So (in my view) it's too specific without laying the groundwork, too long, and doesn't take into account that people who want the detail are more likely to have clicked ahead already. Also, some of the material could use better sourcing: health claims, for example, should ideally be MEDRS-compliant.

This is why i suggested we meld some of your work and ideas into the present section.

All in all, if I were writing this article, I would focus on producing a short, and readable, general background for people who don't want to click ahead to the sub-article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that i cut apart your reply. If "absolute truth" exists, the true solution is likely to be found not 100% in your suggestions nor in mine, but probably in what will require a slightly time-consuming process that would scrap the RfC limitations and instead rely on logic. I agree with the above suggestions - in fact, a "short readable, general background" for newcomers who don't have the time or patience to read the main article is exactly my goal. Truthfully, i doubt our ideas for a perfect summary are that different.

One example of a difference would be the dolphin information. I'll use this as an example of some of the process that might be required to write a respectable DHW section. To give the reader raw data ("700 dolphins") rather than information that includes contextual understanding is really a waste of space, and given we are aiming for summary-style, this is a bad idea. I've been studying the spill since it began, and have run across these numbers for 3.5 years. These numbers meant nothing to me until i heard them in context - that 3 years later, dolphins continue dying at 6 times the per-spill rate, and that the fate of dolphins specifically speaks to the overall health of the gulf better than any other indicator due to their position at the top of the food chain, and because they are similar to humans in their response to spill toxins. A very slight change to the way we convey this data would give the reader a wonderfully full picture of the subject: the big-picture impact of PAHs on the ecosystem. Right now we have a raw number, which could actually be awesome news if perhaps pre-spill number were even higher. The reader needs this context.

Because we haven't gone through this process, it might be assumed that i want some gigantic section overwhelmingly packed with the most damning information available. Not so. I want nothing different for this section than i do for any other bit i would add to this encyclopedia. I do seek balance, and i don't like to waste anyone's time with fluff. I think 15 year old readers are even more focused on accessing quick, hardcore data and would be revolted by TIME-Life style prose (a good example of that is found in the less-popular draft being considered alongside yours). If i have anything in common with the 15 year old reader, it is probably that we don't like to waste our time. I would be unhappy to find out that the two paragraphs i just spend my time reading were nothing more than a teaser and an elaborate link to an article that would require an afternoon to read. I believe no one has an afternoon these days (and the number of clicks to the DWH article does not mean that anything beyond the intro is being read, if that). It seems that life right now is so incredibly stressful that people are consumed with immediate needs, and any new information they receive most likely comes from cable news whilst eating supper in front of the TV. Having worked on the DHW article for three years, seeing that at most 3 people have participated updating the article with information, leads me to believe it is not a well-read article nor a popular subject of study. I quit updating the article in early 2012, and no one took up the reigns. It's pretty surprising when you consider the scale of this disaster in terms of, er, everything, that there hasn't been a good-sized team working to update that and its offshoot articles. The offshoot articles haven't been touched since their inception and get about 25 views a day. Which makes our mention of it at the BP all that more important. This truly might be the only place one learns the facts. And as we know by one iVoter, some of our readers do not have even the basic facts about the biggest spill in history. This is on us to repair. I do understand if people just want to get this over with. Like Figureof9 says, there is no hurry. Even is we'd been RfCing for 3 years over this, the goal must be quality writing, even if it requires some vacations and deep-breathing along the way. petrarchan47tc 22:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, two things. First, you seem to be saying that readers going to the spill aren't reading it (even though they went there specifically to learn about the spill), but readers coming to BP are reading it (even though they may not have gone there specifically to learn about the spill). Can you say more about why readers would approach things so differently in your view (assuming I understood you properly)?

Well, i wouldn't claim that people are reading the DWH section at the BP page, i meant to speak to those who happen to be. And again i can only use my own self as a reference, plus what is known from surveys. I am (like a 15 year old) more likely to read a summary of anything, anywhere, than a long article. User:Binksternet, in one of our past RfCs on the BP intro, brought some statistics saying that something like 75% of readers only read the intro of any article. So, for those who do click on the DWH page, we can assume only 25% go further than the intro. Logic tells me people didn't read the article very thoroughly for two reasons: the page was largely unreadable due to sprawl, having been updated but never pruned for two years+, and the sections we've agreed are important and should be covered are sections that appear over half-way down the DHW page. It was set-up in the early days by editors who take part only in large structural changes but never take part in building the article, unless it was to defend the oil companies. (This is a fact that can be found in the archives, and Gandy might be a really good person to weigh in as well.) Some have pointed out that this might be a way of hiding the ugly parts. The second clue is that for all this time, 2 editors (3 was a very generous statement earlier) have been the only ones to truly work on the article or even to update it in some small way. I used to get so excited when i saw that a new person had contributed, that a change had been made, as it needed help so badly. But every single time it was vandalism or nothing more than the rare removal of an extra comma. If people were reading, we can assume that someone, at some point, would have done some editing. But there is another problem with relying on the DWH article, and although i'll be repeating myself to you just a bit, i should give you the scoop: petrarchan47tc 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that people have limited attention spans (and because of the Web, I think brains that absorb information very differently from a few years ago). But I also think they will drink in a good article about the spill if it's presented well. That's where I would focus my attention if I wanted people to know about it.

The problem with the DWH article is the whole reason i left Wikipedia. Please highlight any of my comments if you'd like to see the supporting diff, but due to time constraints, let me just tell you the story. The DWH page sat very still and quiet after the capping of the well, with only some additions being made until 2012 when i stopped. During 2012 the page had almost no activity, until roughly 48 hours after the first and only time i stood up to the BP rep, asking him to consider stepping away from discussion of a section that was very controversial. Surprisingly, at 10:30 PM on the night before Christmas Eve, someone swooped in and removed the entire environmental damage section from the DWH article, creating a spinoff article sans intro, with no consensus or summary. This editor is banned more often than not, and that includes the present. We went through a period i'd rather not detail, the records are there, but essentially the entire page was rewritten without consensus from the editors who have been working on it, without consensus at all, and by the same editors who seek to minimize anything harmful to any oil companies on Wikipedia, from what i have seen. So i'm not entirely delighted to send everyone rushing to the DWH page. And as i've said before, when i tried to update the page after the big upheaval/whitewashing, it was met with more reductions of similar content. I was allowed to add something recently, but only after lots of arguing and some support from another editor. If i were allowed to really work on the page, i still am unable due to real life work. petrarchan47tc 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: dolphins. As I was looking around for sources for my draft, I came across an awful lot of speculative stuff about the dolphins and the human-health consequences. Do you have very good sources for the dolphin material (e.g. I saw the figure 175,000 dead). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea sourcing was a problem. Would you be willing to gather a list of questions of this sort? Because i misspoke earlier, i actually contacted 3 people who agreed to help. One is a researcher who said she can email any of the scientists working on the spill - Dr Bea, Riki Ott, literally any of the independent researchers can be contacted, as she is working alongside them. I don't have the time to do the digging myself, but let's utilize your idea and my contacts to save ourselves time and get the best information available. petrarchan47tc 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing issue that jumped out at me in the current version is about the human health consequences. It discusses a study that the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection group, began in August 2011. Two years on, the article doesn't say whether that group completed the study, or why it's being cited.

Looking at Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, there is quote from a researcher with a PhD in sediment toxicology (referred to in the article as Dr., which implies in this context that she's a physician), saying: "I’m dealing with three autopsies' right now. ... I know two people who are down to 4.75 per cent of their lung capacity, their heart has enlarged to make up for that, and their esophagus is disintegrating ..." That doesn't sound to me like the kind of thing a medical source would have said, and the very precise 4.75 lung capacity in two people sounds odd. There is also a sixteen-year-old boy quoted in the article who has lesions on his brain that "are the same as lesions on the brains of marine life from the Exxon Valdez spill ..." I found an interview with him (he is in his 20s) where I believe he said he has lesions on his brain now that he did not have before the spill. How does he know that?

The only way to address these issues is to stick to MEDRS-compliant sources. That guideline (when I last checked) doesn't rule out news sources that discuss anecdotal reports, especially in a case like this where local residents may be genuinely frightened, but the article or section should focus mostly on medical and other academic reports. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The GAP report has been completed, and is extensively covered in the recent corexit section at bp talk. There are links to the report, which was released in April, I believe. Here is an Al Jazeera article that covers Paul Doom, the boy with brain lesions. The doctor dealing with autopsies is Riki Ott, who can be contacted with specific questions. But like I said, no one has worked on the spinoff articles since they were created, I'm unsure how much time I would devote to studying them. You might look at the pre-December 20 2012 or so version of the DWH article instead. But if we're going for summary, I doubt anyone would argue for inclusion of Doom or specific statements from Ott. We have to also bear in mind that only Al Jazeera and independent researchers and media really covered the facts. It has been proven that bp and US govt agencies were involved in a coverup (again, a glance at the recent corexit 'draft' would provide more) and that it might be slightly challenging, though not impossible, to pull the story together. petrarchan47tc 19:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

GAP report. petrarchan47tc 19:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Later edit: sorry, removed my question because I figured it out. I was groggy when I responded to you, and probably should have had some coffee first. I understand the requirement for MDRS and academic sources. Because of the three people who have agreed to help us, sourcing simply will not be a problem. petrarchan47tc 01:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The main thing in articles discussing the health effects is to minimize the use of news stories as sources, and base the articles mostly on MEDRS-compliant sources. You can look for abstracts on JSTOR and PubMed, and if you don't have access to the full articles, you can request them at WP:RX; there are some editors there who are extremely kind about supplying copies. I currently have JSTOR access if you ever need anything from there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you're excluding all but JSTOR-type sources now, including the completed GAP report, but I could be misreading this. If I am to hunt for the articles requested, I need a concrete question. If the question is" what would be a summary of health effects from reliable sources.", the GAP report should cover most of our bases. petrarchan47tc 21:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS says: "Ideal sources for such content [health claims] includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."

High-quality news sources can be used with caution: "... the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information in a medical article." So you can use a newspaper article to say "local residents say that ...," but you can't use it to say "local residents are suffering from ...". And the use of anecdotal reports from news articles is best kept to a minimum because there's no way to evaluate them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To make is easier for me to understand and therefore to help, please speak to the GAP report specifically and it's potential usefulness to our present goal. I assume you were very interested in using it, given the request for a current version. petrarchan47tc 22:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would have to read it all before I could say, but having glanced at it I would include that it existed, but I wouldn't use it as a source for medical claims. You could ask others at WP:RSN. That's where you'll find the editors who regularly look at source appropriateness. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrolled flag for CorporateM

Greetings! I was a little surprised to see that you added User:CorporateM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to the autopatrolled group. As a reminder, this flag does not impact the editor in any significant way, but it does inhibit review of their newly created page by curators. Its purpose is to reduce the workload on curators for prolific page creators whose work does not need checking. Looking over their recent creations, I see a missing lede sections example here and other minor issues that indicate that this editor's edits should still be reviewed. Can you please remove this permission? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood, will do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Kramer edit request

Hi SlimVirgin! Would you mind taking a look at this edit request? You protected the article back in 2011 per BLPDELETE, but I'm not quite sure what the issues were so I thought I would ask first. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to go ahead and redirect that title to the main page, or remove the protection, that's fine by me. In my view, the main article shouldn't exist because there are inherent BLP problems and the subject is borderline notable, but I was overruled at DRV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I've unprotected the redirect and updated the redirect target. Given that the main article was unprotected, it seemed like a logical step, although I wouldn't be opposed to protecting again if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Homo sapiens for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Homo sapiens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homo sapiens until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

BP RfC

I notice that we're now in the middle of another RfC on the BP article, and that this one is set at 14 days like the last one. Given that it is the summer, can't we let this one run its ordinary 30-day course and not set it at 14 days in the beginning? Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind if we increase it to 30 days. But I think it's important in the meantime to reduce the DWH spill section, given that there's no consensus for it. It's the lack of movement over that issue that's causing people concern, and extending the decision by yet another 14 days won't exactly foster good relations. In addition, situations like this can cause a backlash, where people end up asking for a shorter section that they might otherwise have been willing to tolerate.

The version from 14 April, for example, seems more appropriate; a revert to that version (assuming the sources are okay) might restore some goodwill. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That would just cause more drama, as I recall there was enormous bickering over that section, which as you know was accompanied by a separate section on the trial that has a big fat NPOV label on it. Together there would be only a one paragraph decrease in size. Someone suggested trying to condense the current version. Maybe somebody could try that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate your agreeing to lengthen the RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think both sides should try to abandon entrenched positions and start moving toward the middle. Cutting the DWH section would help a lot. I didn't follow what you meant about the previous section being only one paragraph shorter. The 14 April section is three paragraphs within one section. The Clean Water Act section (which should be part of the spill section) could be cut to one paragraph with no loss of information, so that would be four paragraphs. The current section is eight paragraphs in four sections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made it known in several places that i consider 4 paragraphs a sensible size/compromise. petrarchan47tc 21:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Slim, I was referring to the "Clean Water Act Trial" section, which is part of the whole shebang. I count eight currently vs. six, so I miscounted by one paragraph. Coretheapple (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you link to the section you're referring to, if it's not the Clean Water Act trial section that I linked to above? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it is. Sorry for the confusion or if I've miscounted, but I think that I have the number right in my recount. On your other point. The record is really quite clear that any "give" has been met by "take" in that article, and that it is viewed as a zero-sum game in general by the editors who have sought to minimize the oil spill and other negative aspects of the company's history. I think that recent remarks on the article talk page within just the past few minutes confirm that. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so if you revert to the 14 April section, then add one paragraph about the Clean Water Act trial, that would be four paragraphs in one section. That's closer to consensus than eight paragraphs in four sections.

I know there have been editors who take too much if anything is given, but to think that way is a battleground mentality. If others are doing it, let them, but don't follow suit. Stick to dispute-resolution (currently the RfCs), and respect the outcome. That's why I'm now arguing for two paragraphs, rather than four, because that was how the RfC was closed. The only thing each individual can do is try to be reasonable, and hope that others will respond by doing the same. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

From my read of the RfC guidelines, and arguments that are bogus should be thrown out. They were not. The closing admin has to have a basic understanding of the spill/topic to recognize which statements are bogus, and I am not sure this was the case (I have no idea). But the guidelines weren't followed to a T, so I don't see why we should respect the outcome until these requirements are met. petrarchan47tc 22:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VisualEditor slowing WP and corrupting pages

This is just FYI status. As you know, there has been massive resistance and horrors with the VisualEditor (VE). Technical experts are warning how, even with Preferences set to skip VE, it is still loaded in background as an "energy vampire" to slow the normal wikitext editor somewhat. Among the crazy text glitches inserted into pages, beware:

• all kinds of spurious nowiki-tags, such as someone adds a blank space: <nowiki> here</nowiki>.
• wikilinks chopped with prefix letters:  "C[[ommandant General]]"
• wikilinks with nowiki-tag split as 2 links: "[[Toffee|<nowiki/>]][[toffee]]" to show one link: toffee.

I hope someone is keeping a current "list of VE horrors" to warn people about which glitches are not yet fixed, as problems to still beware. I think a Bot could be written to scan pages and auto-correct many bad wikilinks. Meanwhile, users can check Special:AbuseFilter/550 to show the latest garbled articles (perhaps 25 per hour, 600 pages per day?) but many are soon fixed when their authors see the horrors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=550

Also, some articles get strange formats from the VisualEditor, but pass for normal, where a fix-it is not necessary. The most complaints seem to be about garbled wikilinks, which almost always need re-edits. Many senior admins think the wider deployment of the VisualEditor is unstoppable, into WP discussion pages next, as a hell-bent mandate from WMF. So, editing of all pages would get slower until the "remove VE" option really omits VE, rather than load it into the background of the wikitext editor. Also, I confirmed how an erstwhile change to the same page, even of one word (anywhere), will crash an entire VisualEditor session (losing all changes), rather than merge the one changed word into the new keystrokes. People are advising to tell friends (or anyone) not to use VE yet. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Wikid. I wonder if anyone from the WMF has explained why there can't be an opt-out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many users are re-editing to remove nowiki-tags ...cut tags inserted by VE (17 per hour, 408 per day). The latest plans say a real opt-out is coming soon (which was delayed because the opt-out software also had horrendous bugs!) but will no longer vampire drain the wikitext editor. Meanwhile, an insider revealed the WMF scuttlebutt talk was expecting many more users to be angry, so angry they would become derailed in protests to the point they could no longer concentrate on updating articles. Gee, how thoughtful of them. Hence, don't use VE, don't waste time worrying over VE. If an admin had installed VE like that, it would earn desysop plus one-year block for wp:POINTy disruption intended to rock the entire interface. And WMF wonders how to attract and retain editors who are able to write better articles (when not derailed?). If WP articles were no so valuable to remote readers (10 million @Main_page daily), it's enough to take wikibreak all summer. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Two weeks later VE corrupting links, dropping footnotes, repeating categories: Several more people have called to remove VE from the interface ("Turn OFF thus F**king Editor"). Now, in the 4th week of VE release to all JavaScript users (usernames +IP users), the VisualEditor is still corrupting many pages, with garbled links: I just recently had to fix "Kensington Palace" to relink "Prince Harry of Wales" in the lead section(!) when VE garbled the link after a user inserted another name the prior day. Today, people have reported losing all but 1 new reference when trying to add 7 footnote references at once. For Category:Episode*, the category link was inserted by VE into a page over 75 times(!) during one edit (see: dif327). A study of 19,500 users (28-30 June 2013) reported 41% of VE users (2 of 5) failed to SAVE the edit, probably because typing the words on the screen seems like the article was updated (so, What is Save?). The severe obsession to force VE upon the users is almost unimaginable; it makes me think of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and experiments on prisoners: more than 10,000 users have been encouraged to use VE on live articles. The only good news is the analysis of editor-activity patterns: during mid-July 2013, 91% of long-term users ran the wikitext editor (while 8.9% tried VE), and IP edits during the same 2-day period were 54% of username activity, confirming the user base is still 1/3 IP-user edits (who might be users who neglected to log-in). Anyway, there has been talk that VE was forced onto users of 8 other-language wikipedias, early, as showboating to report "progress" at Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong, during 7-11 August. Other victims of VE: German WP (de), Spanish (es), French (fr), Hebrew (he), Italian (it), Dutch (nl), Polish (pl), Russian (ru) and Swedish (sv). I am stunned. -Wikid77 01:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• German WP poll shows 98% of 465 for VE Opt-In: More FYI: German Wikipedia shut down VE as opt-in only. German users ran a poll on 27 July 2013, and within 2 days the poll closed, when 458 users (98.49% of 465) supported only Opt-In, while 7 users supported VE as Standard for logged-in usernames. The 458 opinions (in German) are: "de:WP:Umfragen/VisualEditor_Opt-in#VE vorerst nur als Opt-in (wie vorher)" ["VE only as Opt-in (as before)"]. A Bugzilla request (Phabricator) was accepted by the WMF VE-team to set VE as only Opt-in for German WP. Some of the comments in the poll were similar to here: "Bitte keine Beta-Testversion, sondern ein fertiges Produkt" ("Please not a Beta-test version, instead a finished product"). Meanwhile, some users did not realize VE would crater on the slightest one-word edit-conflict, and wished to use VE for talk-pages: "Und hier auf den Diskussionsseiten wäre der VisualEditor auch nicht schlecht!" ("And here on the talk-page, the VisualEditor would be also not bad!"). There are over 520 various opinions in that dewiki poll, where some imagined that VE was released to dewiki because it would be functional software typical of a large corporation. -Wikid77 09:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• English WP has RFC to reduce VE to opt-in only: Another RFC has been created (30 July 2013), similar to the German VE poll, to question reducing VE to only an opt-in feature, where new users would see default "Edit" as the wikitext editor. See: wp:VisualEditor/Default_State_RFC, for comments from 75 users so far. -Wikid77 09:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

JSTOR

Steve Walling is using a thread on his talkpage, here, to respond to my JSTOR queries. You may want to keep an eye on this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I gave the wrong link (Steve has two talkpages). The correct one is User talk:Steven (WMF) Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Take a look now at Elisabet Höglund. I think I have done all the edits you asked me to do, hopefully you will find them sufficient. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Babba, I think there's still quite a bit to do. For example, there are wikilinks that don't lead to relevant articles. It's often not clear what needs to be italicized (titles) and what not. Still a lot of Höglund, then Elisabet Höglund. Some expressions aren't clear, e.g. "workmarket reporter" and "economy reporter" (I assume the former is labour correspondent and the latter financial correspondent, but I'm not sure). Also, the structure is a little confusing.

I tried to copy edit it, but there a few places where I didn't know how to express the text differently because I'm not familiar with the names/titles. Not being able to read the sources doesn't help. Is there a Swedish editor who might be willing to help you with a copy edit? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Several editors have now assisted me on the Elisabet Höglund article. I believe the article is sufficiently updated and copy-edited now atleast for DYK. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Animal Protection Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Animal Protection Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Protection Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. doktorb _words^deeds 06:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for GuLF Study

Allen3 ^talk 12:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Tech Nine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Talk:Tech Nine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 15:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Ooooh, you're in trouble! Just kidding. A random web user is complaining at the Help Desk about an edit you made. Just thought I'd give you a courtesy heads-up in case your ears started burning. The issue seems to me like a basic reading comp fail on the complainer's part. On the other hand, if you do have a glaring anti-McCann agenda, please save us all a ton of time and come clean! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi CB, I think the poster was warning of off-wiki discussions attempting to influence the article. Not sure though. But thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that other perspective. The submission read like a wall of gibberish to me. Maybe it was my reading comp fail after all.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Flickr RFC

Thanks for wading through the Flickr RFC; you asked someone to clarify whether the current version was a compromise, and whether any issues remained, so I've done that here. --McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Would appreciate you taking another look at this if you have a moment - one editor has apparently rejected the RFC closure, and after a weekend of WP:SILENCE has gone ahead and rewritten the article to their preferred version. If you think a second, multiple-choice RFC is the way to go here, fair enough, but I'm a little concerned that two WP:SPA Flickr users have been successfully pushing to keep a detailed "new Flickr update bad!" section in the article for two months now. --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for closing five discussion formerly listed at the Requests for closure subpage of the Administrators' noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Best regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 21:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, Armbrust, thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to reconcile policy and MOS guidance

I saw your closure at the Sunn O))) RM... and I absolutely agree that we need to resolve the underlying policy/guideline conflict between COMMONNAME and MOS#Trademarks. Do you have any suggestions about how to do this? The various factions have been butting heads on both pages... with no sign of a compromise in sight. I am not sure if a compromise is possible. I am tempted to take the dispute to Arb-com, but is this the kind of thing that arb-com would deal with? Your advice would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar, I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of these discussions, so it's hard to know what to suggest. I don't know which language came first, but a policy takes precedence over a guideline, so long as the language in the policy was added with consensus, and/or has gained consensus with the passage of time. I suppose the way forward would be an RfC to check that the relevant part of the policy does have consensus; and if so, to ask whether the MoS advice needs to be removed entirely, or rewritten so that it's consistent with the policy.

The thing that ought to stop is editors moving titles contentiously without discussion to make them MoS-compliant, while at the same time violating COMMONNAME and RM. If anyone is repeatedly doing that, they could be asked not to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hans von Ohain - again.

Is it possible to protect Hans von Ohain again - just for a couple of days, until this content dispute is solved → [3]. User Completeaerogeek continues to edit war → [4], without having achieved editor consensus. --IIIraute (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note for Completeaerogeek. Hopefully that'll do the trick. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your help. --IIIraute (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

rfc close

I have asked for a second opinion on your close an AN. Not accusing you of anything, but we have been dealing with this topic debate for months between the same entrenched editors (Notable addition of Andy this time around), and had significant outside input from uninvolved editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I request that in your summary, you put similar level of detail into the responses to those objections as to the objections themselves. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, that's fine. Thanks for letting me know.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to close it in a more definitive way, but it wasn't clear enough what the dispute was. I had to look at the article history to work it out, and it still wasn't obvious whether people wanted that section to be removed entirely, rewritten, reduced, or re-sourced – an RfC needs to make those issues clear. Also, some of the questions were worded in a way that guaranteed affirmative responses, as you can see by the fact that no one was in the "oppose all" section. That's a problematic way to set up an RfC. Finally, although you had the numbers marginally on your side, people were split, and the problematic structure and policy arguments meant that the numbers alone couldn't be relied upon.

I do appreciate that wording an RfC like this is much harder than it looks, and I'm sorry that you've put work into something that hasn't (yet) borne fruit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the questions were to address objections that have previously been made. (I can find you several places in the archives where other editors were directly arguing that "gun confiscation was by definition not gun control, because it was not implemented by democratically elected gov, and implemented in a discriminatory manner".[5] and that "it was done incidental to the holocaust, and not a program of gun control" [6] the fact that my question to address those objections has an almost mandatory answer, is a sign of how facetious those objections were. (unless that comment from you is directed at a different one of my questions). In the RFC questions, I attempted to directly address POV, UNDUE, and FRINGE policy objections in the questions as well, and since there were 15+ people who said support to that question indicates? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, in response to your second post, if there are particular arguments from supporters of the RfC that you want me to highlight in the close, please point them out and I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In particular, that there are multiple (many many) reliable sources discussing this, that the oppose editors have not provided any sources to support their assertions, and the argument that sources are not required to be neutral, and that minority viewpoints are to be represented - the opposition cannot just by fiat declare something to be fringe, particularly something that has been raised by congress, by federal appeal judges in gun control case opinions, multiple academic journals, hundreds of books and articles, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for spam, per the response on AN, we apparently need to discuss this more before they will take a look.

I am not sure if you are aware, but this is the second RFC on this subject, the previous one created by one of the opposers. Both threaded discussions were dominated by the entrenched editors from both sides, and we are basically disenfranchising 15-20 uninvolved editors who all had ample opportunity to raise objections to the nature of the RFC or its questions, and did not do so. (and several who asked questions, had those questions answered, and then proceeded to !vote such as Carol)Gaijin42 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right that people can't simply declare a position to be FRINGE, but I'm not familiar with the sources so I can't comment further. Clearly, it's self-evident that an armed populace is harder to subdue than an unarmed one, and that totalitarian governments have worked to disarm and subdue people. The question is how to present this, how to source it, how to make sure it's neutral, and whether calling it "gun control" is appropriate. Again, I couldn't tell from the RfC exactly what the issue is: whether most of those opposing want those sections removed, reduced or what.

As for the RfC, Andy did raise an objection to it the day it opened, and suggesting rewriting it. I did look at the first one, but again it was very unclear. Perhaps you need to split this up into several RfCs. What is the key question for most people? Is it: should sections on totalitarian governments be included at all? Or is the issue how to include them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

the opposers are requesting either the complete removal of the content, or their compromise that it be presented only as a fringe view on the gun politics in the US article. As I said, all of the questions are direclty addressing opposition arguments. "it didnt happen", "it happened but thats not gun control". "its gun control, but wasn't important in context", "only fringe people care about this, and it is npov/undue to include" etc. I previously made several attempts to open up talk discussions addressing issues one at a time, and every time the talk quickly derailed onto one of the other questions. the only way to address the issue is to address all of the objections at once. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what the 'opposers' are asking for is a clear explanation, based on reliable sources, of why we have two articles on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Gaijin42) I have to go offline shortly. Over the weekend I'll look again at the individual questions to see whether any of the questions that didn't guarantee affirmative responses, and didn't ask about matters of fact, can be said to have gained consensus. The problem, as I wrote in the close, is that they were couched within an RfC that (arguably) wasn't neutrally presented, so it's difficult to rely on the supportive responses. But I'll take another look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In terms of the appropriateness of my RFC questions, there were to address comments like the following from one of the opposing editors [7]

"The essential question is: Did the Nazis practice gun control? This is only true if we 1) take the term "gun control" literally, and define it as something like "All regulation or limitation on private gun ownership" (which we can't do without falling into absurdities) or 2) adopt a non-literal political definition for gun control like "all government limitation and regulation of private ownership of guns", which again falls into absurdities and is rejected by mainstream academic discourse. To avoid absurdity and stay in line with accepted academic definitions, we should adopt a definition of gun control like "broad-based, non-discriminatory (except regarding criminals) governmental attempts to regulate or limit private gun ownership." This definition decidedly excludes the examples of authoritarian governments disarming particular ethnic or (non-violent) political groups. Most importantly for the purposes of Wikipedia is how mainstream scholars think of and define gun control. Like me, they conceive of it a broad, non-discriminatory (except regarding criminals) governmental policy of limiting and regulating private gun ownership. They also clearly do not conceive of Nazi Germany as having practiced gun control."

I am in agreement with you that the only correct answer to several of my RFC questions was "Yes, obviously". but other editors clearly disagree, and that was the purpose of those RFC questions. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Death march from Dachau.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Death march from Dachau.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Madeleine McCann age-progression poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Madeleine McCann age-progression poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hans von Ohain - again. (and again)

Hi Slim, I need some assistance. I have been trying to get IIIraute to understand the evidence I have provided but he absolutely refuses and in fact has descended into nonsensical statements. He seems to have a death grip on the Ohain and Whittle pages and will not consider any changes despite the fact that what he has written is demonstrably incorrect and I believe knowingly misleading. He will not allow any changes to the article. If you could spare some time to skim our exchanges on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hans_von_Ohain. If not can you help me with the dispute process. I have lodged one but cannot seem to find it now. (not a Wiki Whiz)Any help would be appreciated. CheersCompleteaerogeek (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I can't make head or tail of that talk page, I'm afraid. The best thing is to hold an RfC, which will hopefully bring in fresh eyes; see the instructions at WP:RfC. Propose an edit, and ask people to support or oppose it. Once you have something set up (assuming you want to go ahead with it), I can tweak it for you if you like, to give it the usual structure. Note that less is more when it comes to RfC proposals: the shorter and clearer it is, the more people are likely to read it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, SlimVirgin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi Piotrus, thanks for the note. Is there a page somewhere explaining more about the survey, and is it supported by the Foundation? I didn't receive your second email, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no page for this project, as this is an extension of [8] The Foundation is aware of this (I've talked to several researchers there, and even signed a nd form :>) but I am carrying out of my own initiative, so there's no page - I may create something eventually, perhaps for next year's Wikimania/Wikisym, by the time of which I should have the data nicely organized. I sent you an email through Wikipedia interface, so if you still don't get it, you may want to check your junk/spam folders, or just sent me an email using an email address you'd like to get an email too, if different. Please note I am not checking other user's talk pages very frequently, so if you'd like me to see your reply please either ping me on my talk, or mention my username so that the new notification system picks it up. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Black Twitter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "Tweets, Tweeps, and Signifyin’: Communication and Cultural Performance on 'Black Twitter'"], ''Television & New Media'', 7 March 2013.</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For creating Black Twitter—an article we had needed to have for a while—and doing it well. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind the short criticism section I added—I thought the article needed to have a little balance. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Daniel, that's very kind! And I like the section you added, so thanks for doing that too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sorry for the late response—I've been focused on content all day and hadn't gotten to check back here yet. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Black Twitter

Hello! Your submission of Black Twitter at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 08:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 08:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Microapartment

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)